British politics

the debate

Look into my eyes

I AGREE with most of the conventional wisdom about last night's debate.

I actually rather liked Gordon Brown's joke about the poster and Lord Ashcroft. But he was a little too belligerent, and was trapped by the basic tension between promising change and defending his record. At the very beginning I thought David Cameron was going to walk it: he trumped the other two in his opening remarks by apologising for the expenses scandal and maturely conceding that Labour had got some things right. But then he waffled on immigration and, in general, went in for too many personal anecdotes (though he was strong on the national insurance row).

Nick Clegg grasped the need to talk through the camera to the audience at home better than the other two. And whereas Vince Cable's central position in the chancellors' debate helped to make him look statesmanlike, Mr Clegg's position at the side of the stage supported his bid to portray himself as an insurgent. He has always been more persuasive and personable than the lack of coverage he generally commands would suggest. It isn't surprising that voters seem to have warmed to him—though I half-expected his liberal stance on prisons and views on Trident to put people off.

The question is, what difference will it (and the other two debates) make to the election result? A boost in the Lib Dem vote helps them, obviously, in the Lib-Tory marginals. But it would also have other, less predictable consequences elsewhere. And it is not yet clear whether liking Mr Clegg's television manner will translate directly into votes.

Readers' comments

Of course Nick Clegg "won" (i.e. came across best). Gordon was understandably concentrating on badgering Cameron who then had to concentrate on being defensive and attacking back. Nick could remain above the fray, chiding the other two for being infantile. It was an easy hand to play and he played it well. Between the main two, I think Gordon came across as rude once too often. We Brits don't like that.

Nick Clegg was dishonest in his assertion that top earners get more than their fair share of "tax subsidies". My memory suggests a statistic that the top 10% of earners pay 50-60% of all taxes. That might indeed be unfair, but it hardly unfair because it is too little!

He compounds his dishonesty, not contested by the other two, who are too cowardly to defend one of our biggest business sectors, when he suggests that banks must pay extra taxes to compensate for the public money used to support them. They all seem to forget how much tax the financial sector paid before the crisis, and to ignore the fact that much of the "bailout" was in the form of loans at high interest rates, or swap of funds for equity. The state could still make a profit on the whole episode when the state's stake in the banks is restored to private ownership.

As part of the nation's recovery, how keen are we to drive away the banking and finance industry by imposing arbitrary taxes?

Regulate by all means, but don't hobble the city. The nation needs it more than the city needs the nation.

No Bagehot. A boost to the Libdems is likely to win the Conservatives far more Lab-Con marginal seats than it is likely to lose to LibDems in Con-LibDem marginals. The total number of winnable marginal seats for the Conservatives has gone up since yesterday (assuming last night translates into increased LibDem support).

In the debate about prison I found it cheering that there was so much understanding about the negative effects of prison, but chilling that Brown seemed so proud about his bulging prisons.

What a missed opportunity to boost the idea of curfew anklets (electronic monitoring). Cheaper than prison. Safer than prison. Does not bring the offender into contact with hardened criminals. Allows the offender to continue education and/or employment. Surely this make it more likely that the offender will go straight afterwards?

Home detention is a real punishment - who wants to be so restricted? But avoids the problems of prison. We make inadequate use of it.

as a Lib Dem supporter, I thought Nick Clegg did well enough but stuttered in places - David Cameron looked more worried and uncertain when he wasn't speaking than I expected and Gordon Brown was more personable and relaxed than he often seems. Overall I thought the whole thing much more solid and decent than I expected, but I wonder what the next two will bring.

Bagehot. I agree with your comments on Trident and prisons. People are wedded to both despite the fact that one is a useless, unusuable and an expensive irrelevance and the other doesn't work and merely acts as a breeding ground for more serious criminal activity. There are no circumstances in which Britain could or would use nuclear weapons unilaterally. It is never going to happen. Remember, we couldn't even invade Suez without getting our wings clipped by all the major powers. Cameron made a real gaffe on this by putting Iran and China in the same sentence.

My bet is that Clegg will glide through the next two debates on the rails because the two old nags - Labour and the Conservatives - will impede each other and make the passage easier for him.

Will Clegg's performance convert into votes? Yes. The Conservatives are not driving ahead in the polls and their lead is at best stable. Labour's position is unchanging, too. The big question is Brown. He is a major impediment to people voting Labour. As for the Conservatives, it is clear people are still wary of them. This leaves the Lib-Dems with a good opportunity. It is highly likely that tactical voting in the marginals will be prevalent in this election as neither Labour nor the Liberals will want to cancel each other out for the benefit of the Conservatives. I'm not sure that in Labour-Conservative marginals that Lib-Dem voters will opt to side with the Cameroons. What's in it for them? Another issue that hasn't been mentioned is UKIP. What effect will they have on Tory and Labour votes? A little shaving here and there is enough under FPTP to gift seats one way or the other. Then there is the Barking Party in Barking.

Like it or not - Clegg may well be a kingmaker - but he won't be crowning Cameron because there is too much of a mismatch in policy terms. As one commentator noted recently, the centre of gravity in British politics is very slightly to the left.

Clegg: good for him and good for British politics, I say. However: his banker bashing sounded rash, his "cold war" Trident remarks misleading, his distancing contrived and his audience interaction corny. The format may suit him well, but the test will be when his policies receive the same level of scrutiny as the "old parties".

Cameron: if "gloss" and "marketing training" makes a man look as relaxed and statesmanlike as Cameron did, then they must be good things. Cameron spoke clearly and calmly and put the message into simple terms in much the same way as Obama did. The only disappointment from the man leading in the polls was a worryingly populist set of policies. NHS ringfencing, immigration caps - why do it?

Brown: a clear last place. The bizarre smirking throughout made a grotesque spectacle of him, then his confrontational style, inability to convey believable ideas and basic weak starting point as ailing incumbent left him looking weak. These debates risk putting Labour's greatest liability, Gordon Brown, at the centre of its brand.

VLCC is on the money. A higher profile for the Lib Dems makes it less likely that their supporters will vote tactically in northern marginals (where the Lib Dems already have a hatful of town halls and are at daggers drawn with Labour). Watch a few extra Tory candidates go through the middle of them. Any unwinding of tactical voting by Lib Dems helps the Tories, and it will help them in the south too, though maybe not so much in Lib Dem-Tory marginals.

"No Bagehot. A boost to the Libdems is likely to win the Conservatives far more Lab-Con marginal seats than it is likely to lose to LibDems in Con-LibDem marginals. "

That entirely depends on where these new Lib Dem votes are coming from. If, for example, its purely from soft Tory voters, then it wins Labour those Tory / Lab marginals. If, by contrast, its solely from the c. 25% of British voters that 2 weeks ago were undecided, then in those Lab/Tory marginals it has a negligible effect.

Given the difficulties of seeing where these votes are coming from, and the extent to which there are regional / constituency variations, it is highly difficult, especially at this stage, to say how this impacts the seat count for each party.

The problem is that everything has become so unpredictable. will clegg gain even more momentum? or will the murdoch/right papers perform a hatchet job like no other...god they're already trying. the problem for cameron is that the only way he can really attack clegg are trident/europe and immigration..it'll be hard to look moderate though if he does....

I don't know... If the Lib-Dems look to soft on the EU, then it could cost them seats in Wessex, which is mainly Lib-Con. If the Tories use this, and use this well, it could also see them gain seats in the north, Labour heartland, which is fed-up of the cheap EU labour that flooded the UK markets. Same on immigration issues, more in the south east and the north though.

Its more a Lib-Con contest then a 3 way contest, Labour is running as an underdog.

As for the Lib-Dems being a kingmaker. Lib-Con councils where they work together, they work rather well. Given that this is something that can work at a local level, it would probably do ok at a national level.

In this blog, our Bagehot columnist surveys the politics of Britain, British life and Britain's place in the world. The column and blog are named after Walter Bagehot, an English journalist who was the editor of The Economist from 1861 to 1877. The blog is currently on hiatus after a change of Bagehot columnist.